What role, if any, do you think entheogens such as psilocybin mushrooms or peyote, have had on the Buddhist community especially in regards to Zen and Meditation?
What's the general attitude towards those who use them as an aid to their spiritual practices?
What's the general attitude towards those who use them as an aid to their spiritual practices?
-
Re: Buddhism and Entheogens
Tue, September 2, 2008 - 10:12 AMNone.
Only if you look at recent statistics.
Western Buddhists entering Tibetan Vajrayana
as recently as the 1970's were experienced with
drugs.
Historically, no relationship. -
-
Re: Buddhism and Entheogens
Tue, September 2, 2008 - 10:39 AMWhat about the historical relation of Cannabis to Buddhism?
Even Hinduism, a precursor to Buddhism, still to this day makes use of Charas, or Hash smoke out of Chillums, by Sadhu Priests. -
-
Re: Buddhism and Entheogens
Tue, September 2, 2008 - 1:50 PMProto-Hinduism is antecedent to Buddhism,
not a precursor. They are very different things.
Shaivite Sadhus belonging to certain orders
do smoke canibis, again no relation to Buddhism.
I do not believe that orthodox Vedic priests of
Vaishnava, Shaivite or Devi denominations
authorize its use, I may be mistaken. Ask them. -
-
Re: Buddhism and Entheogens
Tue, September 2, 2008 - 2:03 PMSemantics is a silly game, but whatever, Hinduism was around before and it is very plain to see that people adopt practices from those who existed before them, while losing other practices.
As for Orthodoxy, well, that's nothing I've ever given much care for, that word often seems to represent the anti-mystical face of religions.
Does it seem so offensive or impossible that earlier civilizations and spiritual practices could have utilized naturally occurring substances that brought about mystic states very similar if not the same as those they were trying to gain via alternative means? -
-
Re: Buddhism and Entheogens
Tue, September 2, 2008 - 4:32 PMI'm sorry I'm not trying to cause an argument, what im really trying to say (and surprised I need to say it to a San Franciscian Buddhist) is to just keep an open mind about it.
-
Re: Buddhism and Entheogens
Tue, September 2, 2008 - 5:07 PMWhat would "priest" mean in this context other than
Vedic priest (graduate of an orthodox vedic math),
who is employed by a temple? There are dozens of
Hindu temples, ask one of their priests and see
what they say.
You don't know me, or how open my mind is. But I
will tell you that I know facts about Buddhism, and
Hinduism-- where they are similar and where they
are different.
Lord Buddha tried many things, found them lacking
and presented a genuine path to Buddhahood that
doesn't involve artificially induced "mystic states."
Rather, Buddhadharma is largely concerned with
reality as it is. Buddhadharma uses mindfulness
meditation and logic mainly, and some devotion. -
-
Re: Buddhism and Entheogens
Tue, September 2, 2008 - 5:22 PM"artificially" induced.
Reality as it is? What if reality isn't as it is and there is more you can't see?
You say you "know"...but what did that one awesome dude say?
"He who speaks, does not know, and he who knows, does not speak" ...
Now, I'm not sure, but I have experienced this subject from several angles, and I think the issue people are ticked off over it is we who use or believe in Entheogens can seem to accomplish in a matter of minutes/hours what someone counting breaths takes years or lifetimes to do. "Religions" like to have the upper hand, to be in control and short cuts tick people off who are dedicated to the long road. -
-
Re: Buddhism and Entheogens
Tue, September 2, 2008 - 11:15 PMAh yes, so speaking facts proves ignorance.
Conversely the scholar, sage, or educated refrains from educating.
Thus ignorace prevails. How is that compassionate?
I think that "awesome dewd" must have the great Orwell !
"Knowlege is ignorance, freedom is slavery..."
Since you know the benefits of "shamanic practice"
why not continue to be a shaman? Why look for the practice
where it is not or insist that it should be? Not in the Theravada,
nor the Mahayana such as Zen, the Pure Land sects, nor the
Tibetan Orders. Nowhere is this practice scriptural. Clearly the
Buddha knows what works where his goal is concerned.
Since you know its good, clearly you don't need the Buddha. -
-
Re: Buddhism and Entheogens
Wed, September 3, 2008 - 12:47 AMI don't take refuge in the Buddha at all, but he was wise beyond all time.
You talking about the scholar, sage, and educated, you talk about things not being written about in the text, but what about esoteric and mystic traditions? You think it's the written word they hand down to each knew man? What about being syncretic and eclectic? Why is it bad that things evolve and CHANGE (or go full circle back to more unremember traditions)?
You are scholarly and well written, and I enjoy your posts, but their is just an air of such certainty and rigidity and unimaginative close-minded orthodox approach to it all...bummer. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Buddhism and Entheogens
Wed, September 3, 2008 - 9:51 AMI invite you to talk to any qualified Lama and receive from
them them oral esoteric (ear whispered) tradition.
Believe me, they are written down. That's how they ensure
that they are not lost. Nobody who has every gotten results
from a lineage has wanted to add or make up things.
Now, openness to other traditions, that is quite common.
I'm one of the most curious people I know. I'm interested
in just about everything, but I never encourage mix and match.
It just ends in resultless confusion. I never met a dilletant
who accomplished anything. So find a path that works for you
and pursue it to the end, practice it to completion, master it. -
-
Re: Buddhism and Entheogens
Wed, September 3, 2008 - 11:24 AMIn my experience, regardless of how different they seem on the outside, the inside, the esoteric and mystic of pretty much every single "path" up the mountain is the same.
Now, I guess you wouldn't ever see a dilettante who accomplished anything, because then they would be a dilettante.
I've choosen my path, a spiritual one of living, learning and growing. Just because I am syncretic in my beliefs doesn't make them any less useful on my path. In fact, a lack of rigid dogma lets me keep my ears and eyes open for truth and BS (of which ALL RELIGIONS got some), no matter where it may stick it's head up.
BTW, I have spoken to "a" Rinpoche at a Sakya Temple in Seattle, WA, on a couple of occasions, and I've been told some very very very interesting things, and certainly nothing that was written down, or against what I've been saying already.
Amrita!
-Isaac -
-
Re: Buddhism and Entheogens
Wed, September 10, 2008 - 9:25 AMI have a similar search as a you Isaac. I am working on a PhD in comparative religion and philosophy focusing on the phenomenology of South American psychedelic shamanic traditions and Himalayan Buddhist traditions.
Though entheogens are mentioned very infrequently in the Buddhist traditions, they are there, specifically datura and cannabis in various tantras.
There is actually another thread on this tribe about this very topic.
Though I respect Mark's knowledge in Buddhism, I do find this thread tainted with a sort of prejudice and certitude.
This tradition is 2500+ years old. Entheogenic plants have been scattered across the planet since life emerged.
It is far from conclusive to say that any "spiritual" tradition has not been influenced directly or indirectly from these substances at some important part of its history.
With regards to "genuine" experiences of reality "as it is", the bias of psychedelics as "artificial" mystical states is ignorant.
Some scholars even speculate that meditative techniques were developed to help navigate psychedelic experiences. As generations slipped by, the techniques were venerated over the experiences they were used to navigate. Though this is a stretch, there is a long long history in both shamanic and introspective traditions of non-duality which may be difficult to disentangle.
My .02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
